About that River in Egypt

Our liberal friends are wondering where it all went wrong. Their generals, the elected politicians, are all running for election either by ignoring ObamaCare or by running against it. But the word hasn't gotten down to the mustachioed officers in the Liberal Hussars. They are still haranguing the troopers with "Time to Sound the Progressive Trumpet" or "Liberals Must Go To War for Health Law." Well, the cavalry never was known for its intellectual horsepower.

But some liberals are prepared to nibble at the reason for the debacle. Take Josh Green of The Atlantic. He notes that in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, recruited a bunch of candidates who grew the Democrats from 44 to 60 in the Senate. As Green reports,

He attributes his success to an insight about the nature of the American middle class -- namely, that it is wealthier, and wants different things from government than most of his colleagues realized ...

Schumer believed that the true middle class comprises people in the prime working years of 25 to 60, whose median household income is around $68,000. He urged his candidates to tout aspirational policies that would appeal to them.

Then in came President Obama and his Chicago crew. They have passed stimulus, health care, and financial reform, but the middle class thinks that the beneficiaries of these policies "have been the very same institutions that caused the crisis." Green is not prepared to come out and admit that Obama utterly betrayed the aspirational voters who created their legislating majority. The White House, he writes, thinks its policies will all work out long-term.

But the real frustration for the White House is that each of these policies does benefit the middle class, but the benefits tend to take the form of increased security or cost savings difficult for most people to quantify. Over time, health insurance will be more comprehensive, secure, and affordable; Wall Street meltdowns won't occur as often, and when they do occur they'll cost taxpayers less.

It's hard for conservatives to credit this, but these chaps must actually believe that their big-government plans will work despite their record of failure. ObamaCare is going to lower health care costs? Do Democrats really believe their own propaganda? Yes, they do.

Of course, we conservatives have an advantage in the "reality-based community" stakes. We just believe that modern economics tells it like it is. In a world of scarce resources, nothing is free. You can pay for them with prices, or you can pay for them with government force, colorfully known in health care as "death panels." When you tax something, we believe, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. And no 2,000-page bill full of administrative panels and regulating authorities can change that.

We think that the way to keep aspirational voters is to present them with a government program that will reward aspirational people, people like them who want to work and feel the pride that comes with providing for their families through honest toil. We just don't believe that ObamaCare, which will crush Americans into a 100-percent government-administered health care system, will ever appeal to aspirational voters.

It's a curious coincidence that the banks of that well-known river in Egypt are teeming with pyramids, temples, and mortuaries. When you think about it, these ruins are nothing more than the detritus from two thousand years of stimulus projects. It's not known how Egyptians reacted to the economic privations or government defaults followed the construction of these job-saving and job-creating wonders.

But we know the economic impact of another temple complex. It's a big one in Asia. It is said that the economy in China suffered a serious reverse after the huge temple complex near Xi'an was completed for the founder of the Qin dynasty, Qin Shi Huangdi. This complex came complete with a pyramid and a virtual city and is almost unexcavated apart from its celebrated parade of terracotta soldiers. It's likely that the fall of the Qin dynasty was helped along by economic troubles arising out of the Qin temple stimulus program.

For those of you wondering about the economic troubles of the current liberal dynasty, this might help. Arnuad Mares writes that government default doesn't mean actual repudiation of government debt or hyperinflation. It just means that government will break its promises.

In other words, some or all of its stakeholders must suffer a loss; either taxpayers (through a higher tax burden), or beneficiaries of public services (through lower public expenditure), or bond holders (through some sort of default).

Whatever they tell aspirational voters, liberals ultimately believe in big government, and big government leads to government default.

Our liberal friends are wondering where it all went wrong. Their generals, the elected politicians, are all running for election either by ignoring ObamaCare or by running against it. But the word hasn't gotten down to the mustachioed officers in the Liberal Hussars. They are still haranguing the troopers with "Time to Sound the Progressive Trumpet" or "Liberals Must Go To War for Health Law." Well, the cavalry never was known for its intellectual horsepower.

But some liberals are prepared to nibble at the reason for the debacle. Take Josh Green of The Atlantic. He notes that in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, recruited a bunch of candidates who grew the Democrats from 44 to 60 in the Senate. As Green reports,

He attributes his success to an insight about the nature of the American middle class -- namely, that it is wealthier, and wants different things from government than most of his colleagues realized ...

Schumer believed that the true middle class comprises people in the prime working years of 25 to 60, whose median household income is around $68,000. He urged his candidates to tout aspirational policies that would appeal to them.

Then in came President Obama and his Chicago crew. They have passed stimulus, health care, and financial reform, but the middle class thinks that the beneficiaries of these policies "have been the very same institutions that caused the crisis." Green is not prepared to come out and admit that Obama utterly betrayed the aspirational voters who created their legislating majority. The White House, he writes, thinks its policies will all work out long-term.

But the real frustration for the White House is that each of these policies does benefit the middle class, but the benefits tend to take the form of increased security or cost savings difficult for most people to quantify. Over time, health insurance will be more comprehensive, secure, and affordable; Wall Street meltdowns won't occur as often, and when they do occur they'll cost taxpayers less.

It's hard for conservatives to credit this, but these chaps must actually believe that their big-government plans will work despite their record of failure. ObamaCare is going to lower health care costs? Do Democrats really believe their own propaganda? Yes, they do.

Of course, we conservatives have an advantage in the "reality-based community" stakes. We just believe that modern economics tells it like it is. In a world of scarce resources, nothing is free. You can pay for them with prices, or you can pay for them with government force, colorfully known in health care as "death panels." When you tax something, we believe, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. And no 2,000-page bill full of administrative panels and regulating authorities can change that.

We think that the way to keep aspirational voters is to present them with a government program that will reward aspirational people, people like them who want to work and feel the pride that comes with providing for their families through honest toil. We just don't believe that ObamaCare, which will crush Americans into a 100-percent government-administered health care system, will ever appeal to aspirational voters.

It's a curious coincidence that the banks of that well-known river in Egypt are teeming with pyramids, temples, and mortuaries. When you think about it, these ruins are nothing more than the detritus from two thousand years of stimulus projects. It's not known how Egyptians reacted to the economic privations or government defaults followed the construction of these job-saving and job-creating wonders.

But we know the economic impact of another temple complex. It's a big one in Asia. It is said that the economy in China suffered a serious reverse after the huge temple complex near Xi'an was completed for the founder of the Qin dynasty, Qin Shi Huangdi. This complex came complete with a pyramid and a virtual city and is almost unexcavated apart from its celebrated parade of terracotta soldiers. It's likely that the fall of the Qin dynasty was helped along by economic troubles arising out of the Qin temple stimulus program.

For those of you wondering about the economic troubles of the current liberal dynasty, this might help. Arnuad Mares writes that government default doesn't mean actual repudiation of government debt or hyperinflation. It just means that government will break its promises.

In other words, some or all of its stakeholders must suffer a loss; either taxpayers (through a higher tax burden), or beneficiaries of public services (through lower public expenditure), or bond holders (through some sort of default).

Whatever they tell aspirational voters, liberals ultimately believe in big government, and big government leads to government default.